RUNHAPPY --- Breeders' Cup Sprint (Trainer fired after)

[magwell]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If she had trash in the barn she needs to hire grooms who won't leave their McDonald's wrappers and empty potato chip bags lying around, no need to have an unkept barn.

Man do you ever like to stir the pot .....

[Big Sal]

Originally Posted by nijinski

Prado boasted , not following instructions,
Read in the courier , she worked the horse before the race , then in another sentence , a guy said he worked the horse cause Prado wasn't there . Wha the heck ,
Amazing this horse won , so happy for him . The rest , no one knows .

Is this English?

[Striker]

Originally Posted by RunDustyRun

I believe she's had over 20 starts..how many wins has she had other than with Runhappy?

She had a winner at Arlington this summer for the same connections as Runhappy. The horse was named Triple Hott, and this was the 2nd start for the horse. The 1st start was in December of last year. Why this was interesting to me was that the sister in law, Wohlers, was listed as the trainer in the PPs, and was a day of program change to Maria B. You don't see too many trainer updates on the day of racing, as I would assume when the horse is entered, this info is put down on the entry form. Yes, Wohlers was the trainer listed during the 1st start at Hawthorne for this horse but it was a little curious to me that the trainer change was noted when it was, and that the horse also won that day.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Striker

She had a winner at Arlington this summer for the same connections as Runhappy. The horse was named Triple Hott, and this was the 2nd start for the horse. The 1st start was in December of last year. Why this was interesting to me was that the sister in law, Wohlers, was listed as the trainer in the PPs, and was a day of program change to Maria B. You don't see too many trainer updates on the day of racing, as I would assume when the horse is entered, this info is put down on the entry form. Yes, Wohlers was the trainer listed during the 1st start at Hawthorne for this horse but it was a little curious to me that the trainer change was noted when it was, and that the horse also won that day.

[Stillriledup]

Didnt use Lasix for the win but then magically needed it next time (and didnt improve)

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Didnt use Lasix for the win but then magically needed it next time (and didnt improve)

It was claimed from them and the new trainer used Lasix.

[nijinski]

Originally Posted by Big Sal

Is this English?

Lol Sal , I shouldn't have posted while waiting for my train .
Couldn't delete , sorry .

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by nijinski

Lol Sal , I shouldn't have posted while waiting for my train .
Couldn't delete , sorry .

LOL.....thought maybe you had gotten off work awhile ago, polished off six
or seven....and hadn't realized you were hitting the comma key after every
word (I've been there)

[nijinski]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

LOL.....thought maybe you had gotten off work awhile ago, polished off six
or seven....and hadn't realized you were hitting the comma key after every
word (I've been there)

Ha ha especially in transit with my I pad .
I swear I didn't polish off even 1 . LOL

[proximity]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

LOL.....thought maybe you had gotten off work awhile ago, polished off six
or seven....and hadn't realized you were hitting the comma key after every
word (I've been there)

thought for a minute we were going to get some more haikus going!!

runhappy wins cup
but borrell her time is up
wohlers takes the reins

[v j stauffer]

Regarding only if she's entitled to the 10% trainers fee.

Lawyers would "probably" never get involved because the stewards have plenty of jurisdiction over this matter.

While yes owners and trainers can have agreements other than the long held industry norms. 10% is so common I would base the beginning of the hearing on that.

First I would ask them both if they had agreed that Ms. Borell would be compensated in some other way than the traditional 10%.

If either said yes I would ask if it was put in writing.

If it was verbal I would ask them what they had agreed upon.

If there were differing stories at that point I would listen to both and decide which seemed more credible. Who did I think was telling the truth? Stewards decisions are based on the preponderance of the evidence. Or in this case who's story seems more truthful.

I would ask how if at all she was compensated for the horses wins in the King's Bishop and Phoenix.

And finally absent a compelling reason I would lean strongly towards the side of the trainer. It was her name on the program. It was her who would be responsible for a positive post race test. It was her who entered and saddled the horse.

IMO she would be 100% entitled to the industry standard norm of 10%. The owner would be instructed to pay his trainer immediately. If he didn't in a reasonable amount of time. He would be suspended until the debt was satisfied.

[upthecreek]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9O3im...ature=youtu.be

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Regarding only if she's entitled to the 10% trainers fee.

Lawyers would "probably" never get involved because the stewards have plenty of jurisdiction over this matter.

While yes owners and trainers can have agreements other than the long held industry norms. 10% is so common I would base the beginning of the hearing on that.

First I would ask them both if they had agreed that Ms. Borell would be compensated in some other way than the traditional 10%.

If either said yes I would ask if it was put in writing.

If it was verbal I would ask them what they had agreed upon.

If there were differing stories at that point I would listen to both and decide which seemed more credible. Who did I think was telling the truth? Stewards decisions are based on the preponderance of the evidence. Or in this case who's story seems more truthful.

I would ask how if at all she was compensated for the horses wins in the King's Bishop and Phoenix.

And finally absent a compelling reason I would lean strongly towards the side of the trainer. It was her name on the program. It was her who would be responsible for a positive post race test. It was her who entered and saddled the horse.

IMO she would be 100% entitled to the industry standard norm of 10%. The owner would be instructed to pay his trainer immediately. If he didn't in a reasonable amount of time. He would be suspended until the debt was satisfied.

They claim she was a private trainer for them and they paid all the stable bills and salaries. As such, industry norms go out the window. Whatever they paid her as a bonus for the prior wins proves intent and their agreement and would or should be what they're held to.

This young woman is done. No one would hire her after seeing the way she'd air their dirty laundry. The owner looks equally bad but he's not the one in need of clients giving him horses to train.

I wondered beforehand why people got such warm fuzzies about this story leading into the BC. I didn't see anything great about a new trainer with 20 starts getting such a big horse so early. I would've thought it a far better story if this was someone who toiled and trained for many years who finally got his big horse.

[daveyj]

Mattress Mack's side of the story:

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...d-what-we-did/

Borell's side of the story:

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...out-the-money/

[pandy]

They spent $40 million on horses and Runhappy is their first GR1 winner.....now they have pulled that GR1 winner from the only trainer who ever trained a GR1 winner for them. Doesn't sound like a smart move to me. I hope they don't ruin this horse.